Will *any* mobile OS emerge dominant by 2015?

I think you underestimate just how devastating and hard-to-reverse the effect from Samsung pouring hundreds of millions into marketing is, how it fuels sales, and how the sales fuel further marketing.

Well, it is a matter of judgement.

But, I would point out that at one time, we could have said the same thing as Dell.

These advantages are strong, but they are not a proposition in physics. You're making the Highlander Argument -- there can be only one. But, that is seldom true.

The other piece is that (if I recall correctly) HTC doesn't really have a plan B. That may cause it to do things that its other compeitors don't.

For instance, it could figure out some partnering relationships that benefit it, perhaps with no-name carriers; it could figure out how to get into the enterprise or certain kinds of enterprises.

Basically, what you're describing is the dilemma a lot of smaller fish face. Some get eaten, but some manage to find a place to hide that the bigger fish are just too big to bother with.

In any event, there really isn't One Unitary Market, especially if you're an HTC. You can be more nimble; you probably have to be, but they start from an OK place; at least they are near breakeven plus trying for the general market today.

But HTC's profit has tumbled 91% YoY, I'm not sure that's a good example of maintaining profit. They are still profitable, no question but they are doing very poorly, and their guidance is predicting more of the same for the foreseeable future. And the issue is that their lost sales aren't being evenly ditto bites to all players equally; they're going to Samsung and Apple.

Which is the problem I have with your analogy ZZ, the PC industry doesn't have one player completely owning the mid range segment, it's distributed amongst a number of OEMs. That isn't the case in the smartphone market.

Perhaps we should focus on the direction their revenues have taken? They're a big company that's barely profutable with Samsung breathing down their neck. If things continue as they have they will move into the red permanently fairly quickly.

Well, the "direction" is profitable. Right now. With Samsung ascendant.

Why is it always the Highlander argument around here? It may come to pass, but it may not. I don't recall Dell doing the same thing in the PC business, for instance.

In fact, given that Samsung is not vertically integrated like Apple (on the software side of it), exactly what is going to make this actually work, given that it seldom actually does? If HTC goes under, that doesn't mean that LG and Moto do. But, if (say) LG gives it up first, who is to say that HTC doesn't get enough of it to keep afloat?

It's all about execution. Samsung has some real advantages here, but they don't necessarily imply extinction for everyone else; just doing very well.

There are things that HTC might be able to pull off precisely because Samsung is larger and tries to do it all. HTC may be able to figure out a market segment or two that works for it. We'll see.

But, I would point out that at one time, we could have said the same thing as Dell.

And it would've been true. It's little guarantee for the long-term, but Dell and HP's massive success wiped countless competitors off the map - into mergers, out of business, etc.

The field of consumer electronics is arguably even harsher.

Quote:

These advantages are strong, but they are not a proposition in physics. You're making the Highlander Argument -- there can be only one. But, that is seldom true.

In other industries, not as much. In computing, I'm afraid, more often than not.

I'm not arguing there will only be one, of course, but I think there's a strong likelihood that only very large players will be able to stay in the game: chief among them Apple, Samsung, Google/Motorola (perhaps), and Microsoft/Nokia (not combined yet, but probably inevitable).

BTW, I corrected my previous post: not hundreds of millions, but billions, from Samsung poured into advertising, marketing, and promotions per year. That is what HTC is up against. Brutal. It is not an equal playing field.

Question about opportunities...low-cost and prepaid markets have little access to iPhone given expense. How do you create a quality product accessible to more people?

We wouldn't do anything we don't consider to be a great product. That's just not who we are. That said, if you look at what we've done for people who are price sensitive, we've lowered the price of the iPhone 4 and 4S as of last September, and last quarter we didn't have enough supply of the iPhone 4. It surprised us.

Also take a look at the history of iPod. When we started, it was $399. Now you can get an iPod shuffle for $49. Rather than cheapening, we build new products with a separate experience. For years, people said 'Why don't you have a Mac under $500 or $1000 or whatever?' We worked on that for a long time and came up with the iPad. So we're always trying to reinvent with great new products.

That "Also take a look at the history of iPod" seems like a dead giveaway. There's going to be a cheaper iPhone, and Apple has some scheme to make it something other than just an objectively worse version of the flagship model. Maybe they could take the flagship model up to a larger screen, and make the cheaper model also the model for people who actually prefer smaller screens (of which I suspect there are many, despite what the consensus around here seems to be).

Yup. It's amusing that it was apparently too subtle for the Street. I've been arguing for a while now that a some sort of lower-cost iPhone model designed expressly for the very large, WW pre-paid market was inevitable (and probably should've arrived sooner). if they're able to introduce it alongside China Mobile deal, that'll make quite a seismic impact. I expect a larger-screen iPhone model as well; either late this year or early next - the rumored "Plus," in short. Probably with the same resolution as the iPhone 5, but larger screen (easier to read, larger for pictures and video, etc) and thinner.

Yup. It's amusing that it was apparently too subtle for the Street. I've been arguing for a while now that a some sort of lower-cost iPhone model designed expressly for the very large, WW pre-paid market was inevitable (and probably should've arrived sooner). if they're able to tie it along with a China Mobile deal, that'll make quite a seismic impact. I expect a larger-screen iPhone model as well; if not this year, then next - the rumored "Plus," in short. Probably with the same resolution as the iPhone 5, but larger screen (easier to read, larger for pictures and video, etc) and thinner.

Agree, it coming. The question is, will they be able to build enough of them!?

Well, I agree a cheaper iPhone should be coming and indeed should've arrived a while back. But what was interesting about Cook's quote was the way it suggested a shift, not just a reduction in costs. In particular, discussing making a cheaper Mac, realizing they couldn't make it "great", and releasing the iPad instead. Of course an iPad isn't a Mac, but it does cover a lot (but not all) of the same functionality. Similarly, on the iPod side, the Shuffle is neither a classic wheel iPod nor a modern touch iPod - it's really its own thing with only a subset of the functionality of the other iPods.

Tends to make you wonder if Apple is planning not just a downmarket iPhone, but perhaps also something that plays some of the roles an iPhone plays, but with a fundamentally different form factor (and significantly lower price).

Apple has tremendous control over their production line. It only makes sense that they will be able to produce high quality, lower cost models, while utilizing their unique fabrication methods (all-in-one design, thin screens, efficient battery life).

I'm at a loss to what you guys are saying here and that's amusing considering Spartak and I probably speak the same language.

look up "oneigenlijk argument"

if people hold Apple to a certain standard, and dissatisfaction is growing (reflected in lower scores) it tells you something about the user experience is starting to lack in light of changing parameters, be it a stronger competition or shifting / changing / increasing (with the changes in technology and social interaction) demands from the userbase.

Cook “appeared to reaffirm the notion that Apple is likely to develop lower priced offerings” to expand the market for the iPhone. Cook said the company is planning “clever things” to address the prepaid market, and that Apple did not want its products to be “just for the rich,” and that the company is “not ceding any market.”

Cook “appeared to reaffirm the notion that Apple is likely to develop lower priced offerings” to expand the market for the iPhone. Cook said the company is planning “clever things” to address the prepaid market, and that Apple did not want its products to be “just for the rich,” and that the company is “not ceding any market.”

Two years later....

Two years later, you're still cheerleading a multi-billion-dollar corporation. Well done you, or something.

Cook “appeared to reaffirm the notion that Apple is likely to develop lower priced offerings” to expand the market for the iPhone. Cook said the company is planning “clever things” to address the prepaid market, and that Apple did not want its products to be “just for the rich,” and that the company is “not ceding any market.”

Two years later....

Two years later, you're still cheerleading a multi-billion-dollar corporation. Well done you, or something.

Tim Cook made the promise of a low-cost iPhone two years ago and nothing came of it. Two years later he says the same thing. I'm simply asking why we should believe him now? How is that cheerleading?

Fair point, but I think it's pretty clear at this point that Apple's strategy is working just fine for the U.S. market, but less well internationally, where iOS is getting increasingly swamped by Android. They held out as long as they could, but it's time.

Fair point, but I think it's pretty clear at this point that Apple's strategy is working just fine for the U.S. market, but less well internationally, where iOS is getting increasingly swamped by Android. They held out as long as they could, but it's time.

You know, this represents a post-Jobsian crossroads for Apple. Jobs was often very stubborn about things like this. If Cook is not, it means he has ceded a bit to reality and realized that Apple, now a huge company, has to behave a bit more like the big company it actually is.

Now, I've been crying for a so-called "iPhone 2" for years, so if they finally produce something like that, I won't feel badly at all.

And yet, piece by piece, you wonder about whether Apple will become just another big company over time. I don't know how you really prevent it.

I'm at a loss to what you guys are saying here and that's amusing considering Spartak and I probably speak the same language.

look up "oneigenlijk argument"

if people hold Apple to a certain standard, and dissatisfaction is growing (reflected in lower scores) it tells you something about the user experience is starting to lack in light of changing parameters, be it a stronger competition or shifting / changing / increasing (with the changes in technology and social interaction) demands from the userbase.

Sorry, where do I say Apple has growing dissatisfaction?

I say that Apple can only ship a polished product, or the brand name (both iPhone and Apple) is diluted.

No more no less, the addition that people are getting dissatisfied is your own addition, not mine.

You know, this represents a post-Jobsian crossroads for Apple. Jobs was often very stubborn about things like this. If Cook is not, it means he has ceded a bit to reality and realized that Apple, now a huge company, has to behave a bit more like the big company it actually is.

Now, I've been crying for a so-called "iPhone 2" for years, so if they finally produce something like that, I won't feel badly at all.

And yet, piece by piece, you wonder about whether Apple will become just another big company over time. I don't know how you really prevent it.

No, this is not a post-Jobsian crossroad. It's something Apple has faced before, under Jobs, and made similar decisions. See: iPod. And it has little to do with becoming "just another big company." It's about balancing Apple's desire for well-designed devices with good (and in the iPhone's case, almost absurdly incredible) margins vs expanding the audience and selling more devices (also well-designed but with more compromises), at a decent but lower margin, and getting that balance right. It has become increasingly necessary because of Android's success, to keep pace in the platform war. (If Android and WP split the field, a lower-cost model might not be necessary, or could be pushed off longer.)

The post-Jobsian crossroad for Apple is whether they are able to continue introducing products that utterly disrupt existing established markets, or take over new emerging markets.... or if Apple minus Jobs lacks his visionary, at times eerily prescient spark. We'll only know that over time.

fil wrote:

Well, I agree a cheaper iPhone should be coming and indeed should've arrived a while back. But what was interesting about Cook's quote was the way it suggested a shift, not just a reduction in costs. In particular, discussing making a cheaper Mac, realizing they couldn't make it "great", and releasing the iPad instead. Of course an iPad isn't a Mac, but it does cover a lot (but not all) of the same functionality. Similarly, on the iPod side, the Shuffle is neither a classic wheel iPod nor a modern touch iPod - it's really its own thing with only a subset of the functionality of the other iPods.

Tends to make you wonder if Apple is planning not just a downmarket iPhone, but perhaps also something that plays some of the roles an iPhone plays, but with a fundamentally different form factor (and significantly lower price).

Ah.... like a watch? Or, rather, personal wearable computing device? (For my money, Siri has to get much, much better before something like that works.)

I actually don't think the lower-cost iPhone model will be all that interesting a solution in the end - I think they will just upsell higher-end models via materials design, better specs (most esp the camera), and software features - but it does seem like something new is coming soon.

No, this is not a post-Jobsian crossroad. It's something Apple has faced many times, including under Jobs, and made similar decisions.

Except here, they did not. When Android was rising, if Apple had produced the iPhone 2 that I and some talked about, it might have stopped Android's rise or at least substantially slowed it.

It wasn't done. It was just as urgent then as it was now; arguably even more so. In fact, it was basically the same conversation.

Apple's instinct, and I put this at Jobs' feet (as a side effect of the Near Death era), was to very much prefer margin to certainly market share and maybe even earnings per share.

Because, that's what the iPhone 2 concept was always about -- taking less margin for more volume in hopes of improving earnings per share.

I was told Apple wouldn't take the margin hit and the iPhone 2 wouldn't happen. I said if they didn't, nothing would stop Android from taking a big section of the market. But, in fact, taking high margin has been great for profit and even earnings per share.

For years, the Apple partisan could rightly point to that and say Apple didn't need to chase Android's low profits.

Except now, people aren't quite so sure. And that's because there's not significant growth to be had other places.

As it plays out, strategically, the actual history ceded a lot of market to Android. If they pursue what amounts to an "iPhone 2" strategy now it means they chose short term profit (or, worse, simply short term margin) over the long term strategic outcome they could have had.

It's true that in iPod, they went another way. But here as in the Mac market, they tend to choose higher margins; its the "more often than not" response.

Except here, they did not. When Android was rising, if Apple had produced the iPhone 2 that I and some talked about, it might have stopped Android's rise or at least substantially slowed it.

Nope, distribution was the much bigger issue - Apple misjudged the speed of Android's progress, and held onto highly lucrative carrier exclusives for far too long. That was a bad mistake, and soon corrected, albeit too late to keep Android from establishing itself. Now comes the next correction.

Quote:

As it plays out, strategically, the actual history ceded a lot of market to Android. If they pursue what amounts to an "iPhone 2" strategy now it means they chose short term profit (or, worse, simply short term margin) over the long term strategic outcome they could have had.

Perhaps, but Android's rise might well have been inevitable. Or, if not Android, WP. The iPod situation was unusual (Apple benefited from weak competition), and the carriers play an important role in the smartphone market, doing their best to prevent a single winner. Also, you can't ignore the immense amount of profit and company value Apple created - with billions that they now use, reportedly, quite strategically. In the end, I agree that they made this decision later than they should have, but I'm not sure the answer is quite so clear-cut. There are many different ways the market could have played out. And hindsight is 20/20.

ZeroZanzibar wrote:

It's true that in iPod, they went another way. But here as in the Mac market, they tend to choose higher margins; its the "more often than not" response.

PCs: long established market, completely dominated by a highly entrenched Windows. After an initial run at roughly competitive pricing with the first iMac, Apple focuses on the higher-end, and moves down bit into premium pricing, mostly stays there.MP3 players: emerging market. Apple starts on the high-end, captures the market, and moves down, maintaining dominance, until they offer a product starting at $50.Phones/smartphones: established market, but dumb, or with very weak platforms. Apple starts on the high-end, transforms the market (and makes an astonishing amount of money that all but transforms the company), and moves down, but more slowly.Tablets: emerging market. Apple reinvents the market, and ?. Starts pretty competitive, and remained so at least until recently; we'll see where they take the mini.

edit: in writing this, it strikes me that "more slowly" is only a little longer than the time it took them to introduce lower-end iPods. It's just the market that now moves much more quickly.

I'd like to make it clear: this is not a debate over htc's performance. News articles are picking up the piece that says apple and samsung share the profits as FACT. Not as "well, effectively true" or as "well, it's kinda-sorta the spirit of things but really, technically, not true" but as FACT. Not as "this paints apple in the best light, and it's mostly true, so we'll run it" but as FACT. It is not fact; it's factually WRONG. We can debate all we like whether the article is true in spirit; the fact is, the article is being heralded in mainstream news as true, de jure, full stop. It's not, and that's a failure by the news media to recognize a opinion/slant piece as not factual.

I'd like to make it clear: this is not a debate over htc's performance. News articles are picking up the piece that says apple and samsung share the profits as FACT. Not as "well, effectively true" or as "well, it's kinda-sorta the spirit of things but really, technically, not true" but as FACT. Not as "this paints apple in the best light, and it's mostly true, so we'll run it" but as FACT. It is not fact; it's factually WRONG. We can debate all we like whether the article is true in spirit; the fact is, the article is being heralded in mainstream news as true, de jure, full stop. It's not, and that's a failure by the news media to recognize a opinion/slant piece as not factual.

Then why did you throw in Sony and LG into your statement?

Apple and Samsung comprise about 99% of the profits right now.

HTC is a rounding error for Apple right now, and bringing up that HTC is still profitable seems a pointless and pedantic argument to make.

Nope, distribution was the much bigger issue - Apple misjudged the speed of Android's progress

But solving the distribution problem would have been necessary but not sufficient. Especially outside of the US where it benefits less from the subsidy game. It could never have fended off Android from what we now know as the high end alone. It just doesn't work that way.

Of the two, the lack of the iPhone 2, as an Android stopper, would have been by far the more significant factor.

And, yes, it did misjudge the speed. Heck, everyone did. The speed in which this market moved was amazing.

But, it still clearly has held on to its "high end" only strategy for too long. You admit as much yourself.

Moreover, to the extent you're right about distribution, it was the same disease expressed another way (your "lucrative" contracts).

Quote:

Perhaps, but Android's rise might well have been inevitable.

What in the world was inevitable about it? We've endlessly rehearsed the disadvantages of Android around here. A lot of folks, even on the Apple side of it, grudgingly admit that Ice Cream Sandwich and Jelly Bean are competitive with iOS, but even a lot of Android supporters aren't that keen on the earlier versions. And, of course, those weren't available yet when the putative, never-happened iPhone 2 could have happened.

The only thing that was "inevitable" was that Apple refused to get its fingernails dirty and really compete, at least in the midrange.

And, for years, the BF chorus approved as Apple (as someone memorably put it) "Hoovered up all the profits". As indeed it did for a while. Trouble is, it seems to have been the same problem GM had when it let the Japanese own the bottom of that market.

Apple gave away not only the low end, but the middle range and thereby ensured Android's rise. There's no other way to put it. Apple left a vacuum it need not have left. I and others said so at the time.

It's not clear that WP would have been the competitor. To be sure, Google seemed to fear it (it remains a major reason Android exists). But, since Android has so far squashed it like a bug, and did in the relevant period, we'll never know. It could be that if there was no Android, the market proceeds at a more leisurely pace, because iOS would have lacked effective competition.

Quote:

There are many different ways the market could have played out. And hindsight is 20/20.

All true. But, businesses are often judged with hindsight. Moreover, some of us thought the mix was wrong from the get-go. The game is never margin as an end in itself, but earnings per share. Which Apple is apparently starting to think about in 2013.

Then there's the old Intel maxim -- cannibalize yourself before your competitor does. Sometimes that works, sometimes it doesn't. But, at the time, it seemed obvious to some of us not even approximately CEOs that it was going to play out that way.

And, Apple's own results should have tipped it off to a fast moving market.

Finally, at least on the design-and-production side, an iPhone 2 wasn't that hard to make. It probably would have looked a lot like what they are supposed to be planning now. Even if (in the US at least) they had limited the carriers they could sell through due to improvident contracts, it could have made a notable difference when it counted.

But, it still clearly has held on to its "high end" only strategy for too long. You admit as much yourself.

Moreover, to the extent you're right about distribution, it was the same disease expressed another way (your "lucrative" contracts).

Yep. I don't think we're really in disagreement here. I just don't think one can completely dismiss Apple growing their market cap by 5x (and their stock is rather artificially low at the moment, IMO) and raking in hundreds of billions, a certain amount of which has gone to establishing their supply chain prowess and improving their strategic position. They well have been too slow to react to Android, but they are not the same company they were in '07. They are immeasurably more powerful. So, while almost certainly a mistake that cost them the *potential* for complete dominance (which would have been depressing, so thank goodness), it's not a fuck-up anywhere close to the way other companies fucked up mobile (primarily Microsoft, Nokia, and RIM).

Quote:

Apple gave away not only the low end, but the middle range and thereby ensured Android's rise. There's no other way to put it. Apple left a vacuum it need not have left. I and others said so at the time.

It's not clear that WP would have been the competitor. To be sure, Google seemed to fear it (it remains a major reason Android exists). But, since Android has so far squashed it like a bug, and did in the relevant period, we'll never know. It could be that if there was no Android, the market proceeds at a more leisurely pace, because iOS would have lacked effective competition.

Could be. Or could be the carriers and OEMs would have rushed to use WP, the only viable iOS competition, and which would enjoy Android's position today (to some extent, anyway - I don't think WP could or would have expanded as quickly as Android). It's all a big unknowable game of What If.

I don't disagree Apple left a vacuum it shouldn't have left, but at that point I think distribution was a bigger factor than not having a lower-cost model. You are right, though: Apple chose profit and establishing the iPhone as a premier brand (to both carriers and consumers) rather than going for a wider market, and in doing so, have Android the oxygen to survive, improve, and thrive. I wonder if Apple was hoping WP would do a better job of competing with Android; their failure has increased the pressure on Apple quite a bit.

Quote:

Finally, at least on the design-and-production side, an iPhone 2 wasn't that hard to make. It probably would have looked a lot like what they are supposed to be planning now.

Yes, but if Apple can't get the upsell balance right, it doesn't make sense for them (Apple being Apple). If the rumors that the lower-cost iPhone will be a simpler plastic model with lower specs is correct, the strategy wouldn't really click into place until (I'd think) at least the metal-and-glass iPhone 4 introduced in '11. So yeah, it seems to me they're at least around two years late with this.

So, while almost certainly a mistake that cost them the *potential* for complete dominance (which would have been depressing, so thank goodness), it's not a fuck-up anywhere close to the way other companies fucked up mobile (primarily Microsoft, Nokia, and RIM).

Yeah, I think we agree more than we disagree at this point.

Certainly, I heartily endorse the above. In particular, WP8/W8 had better stage a hellova recovery or Ballmer will be chiefly remembered as the Guy That Missed Mobile And Made Microsoft An Also Ran. MS was by far the best placed to do a better job here.

Gates nearly became "that guy" over the internet, but he managed to turn that one around (or at least turned it around well enough).

I do give Ballmer credit for seeing the problem and for doing something pretty dramatic (with W8) to deal with it. The question on W8/WP8 is really one of sheer execution. Did they traverse all of the minefields and unpleasant compromises to get to where they wanted to get to in a couple of years without said compromises? That's the issue now. Basically, can MS survive the current crappy state of affairs where they still need x86 (and may always need it) and yet survive an era where "low cost" is ARM-dominated.

I also give credit for at least facing the necessity of the dealing with the compromises. It would have been easy enough to say "wait a year or three when x86 is battery-competitive" and then missed the tablet market as well as the phone one. Companies do sometimes do that. Again, it's all about execution and whether they made the right choices, not all of them pleasant, in 2012 and 2013. That will cast a large shadow over MS' future.

So, while almost certainly a mistake that cost them the *potential* for complete dominance (which would have been depressing, so thank goodness), it's not a fuck-up anywhere close to the way other companies fucked up mobile (primarily Microsoft, Nokia, and RIM).

Yeah, I think we agree more than we disagree at this point.

Certainly, I heartily endorse the above. In particular, WP8/W8 had better stage a hellova recovery or Ballmer will be chiefly remembered as the Guy That Missed Mobile And Made Microsoft An Also Ran. MS was by far the best placed to do a better job here.

Gates nearly became "that guy" over the internet, but he managed to turn that one around (or at least turned it around well enough).

I do give Ballmer credit for seeing the problem and for doing something pretty dramatic (with W8) to deal with it. The question on W8/WP8 is really one of sheer execution. Did they traverse all of the minefields and unpleasant compromises to get to where they wanted to get to in a couple of years without said compromises? That's the issue now. Basically, can MS survive the current crappy state of affairs where they still need x86 (and may always need it) and yet survive an era where "low cost" is ARM-dominated.

I also give credit for at least facing the necessity of the dealing with the compromises. It would have been easy enough to say "wait a year or three when x86 is battery-competitive" and then missed the tablet market as well as the phone one. Companies do sometimes do that. Again, it's all about execution and whether they made the right choices, not all of them pleasant, in 2012 and 2013. That will cast a large shadow over MS' future.

Well..WP8 is doing better and better each quarter and vastly outperforming the market as a whole:

They grew 124% and the market grew 38%. And they have been having y/y growth like that for the whole year. They sold 6.2mil units last quarter. More than Symbian, more than Bada (remember when people tried to trump Bada outselling MS? so much for that--outsold by 2.3x). And almost catching up to RIM. 2011 RIM outsold MS by 4.7x, last quarter it was by 1.18x. I expect MS to pass RIM this quarter or next. At that point MS will be #3. and growing faster than the others. So the direction is good. Windows 8 will help as it gets out there. So will windows tablets. MS probably needs to drop some cash on this to propel it along.

So, while almost certainly a mistake that cost them the *potential* for complete dominance (which would have been depressing, so thank goodness), it's not a fuck-up anywhere close to the way other companies fucked up mobile (primarily Microsoft, Nokia, and RIM).

Yeah, I think we agree more than we disagree at this point.

Certainly, I heartily endorse the above. In particular, WP8/W8 had better stage a hellova recovery or Ballmer will be chiefly remembered as the Guy That Missed Mobile And Made Microsoft An Also Ran. MS was by far the best placed to do a better job here.

Gates nearly became "that guy" over the internet, but he managed to turn that one around (or at least turned it around well enough).

I do give Ballmer credit for seeing the problem and for doing something pretty dramatic (with W8) to deal with it. The question on W8/WP8 is really one of sheer execution. Did they traverse all of the minefields and unpleasant compromises to get to where they wanted to get to in a couple of years without said compromises? That's the issue now. Basically, can MS survive the current crappy state of affairs where they still need x86 (and may always need it) and yet survive an era where "low cost" is ARM-dominated.

I also give credit for at least facing the necessity of the dealing with the compromises. It would have been easy enough to say "wait a year or three when x86 is battery-competitive" and then missed the tablet market as well as the phone one. Companies do sometimes do that. Again, it's all about execution and whether they made the right choices, not all of them pleasant, in 2012 and 2013. That will cast a large shadow over MS' future.

Well..WP8 is doing better and better each quarter and vastly outperforming the market as a whole:

They grew 124% and the market grew 38%. And they have been having y/y growth like that for the whole year. They sold 6.2mil units last quarter. More than Symbian, more than Bada (remember when people tried to trump Bada outselling MS? so much for that--outsold by 2.3x). And almost catching up to RIM. 2011 RIM outsold MS by 4.7x, last quarter it was by 1.18x. I expect MS to pass RIM this quarter or next. At that point MS will be #3. and growing faster than the others. So the direction is good. Windows 8 will help as it gets out there. So will windows tablets. MS probably needs to drop some cash on this to propel it along.

It'll be interesting to see if they can keep up this momentum. WP8 performed ok at launch, but that was somewhat expected. I'm not confident that the forthcoming numbers will be as good. After initial proclamations that sales were up 400% or so percent (or whatever number Ballmer touted) it's all gone disturbingly quiet again from both Microsoft and Nokia.

I'm at a loss to what you guys are saying here and that's amusing considering Spartak and I probably speak the same language.

look up "oneigenlijk argument"

if people hold Apple to a certain standard, and dissatisfaction is growing (reflected in lower scores) it tells you something about the user experience is starting to lack in light of changing parameters, be it a stronger competition or shifting / changing / increasing (with the changes in technology and social interaction) demands from the userbase.

Sorry, where do I say Apple has growing dissatisfaction?

I say that Apple can only ship a polished product, or the brand name (both iPhone and Apple) is diluted.

No more no less, the addition that people are getting dissatisfied is your own addition, not mine.

Huh? The fact that you deny that was exactly what I was contending.

Maester posted a link to a survey that showed Apple's satisfaction rate dropping, and being surpassed by android phones.

Maester wrote:

On Device Research carried out a study of 93,825 U.S. mobile users between July of last year and January 2013 and discovered that Apple’s iPhone 5 only ranked as the fifth best smartphone, a result which led the iOS device trailing four Android-powered models.

Users were asked to rank their smartphone between 1 ( “very unsatisfied” ) and 10 (“very satisfied”), and while the iPhone 5 scored respectively (8.23), it was still leapfrogged by the Samsung Galaxy Note 2 (8.26), the HTC Rebound 4G (8.32), the Motorola Droid Razr (8.5) and Motorola Atrix HD (8.57).

Then your reply is that people hold Apple to a higher standard. This is 'een oneigenlijk argument'. Satisfaction is dropping, and they are not on top of satisfaction ratings anymore. Even if people hold Apple to a higher standard, their performance is slipping to the competion, so its an ominous sign any way you slice it.

But recent history has no proof Apple is held to a higher standard. You could actually make an argument for the exact opposite, since their ratings were always systematically higher. When in love with a person or product, people tend to be very forgiving for his/her/its flaws. The RDF might be wearing off on them.

Then your reply is that people hold Apple to a higher standard. This is 'een oneigenlijk argument'. Satisfaction is dropping, and they are not on top of satisfaction ratings anymore. Even if people hold Apple to a higher standard, their performance is slipping to the competion, so its an ominous sign any way you slice it.

This is not a random survey - it's an online poll. It's from a company that pays people to fill in surveys

JD Power does actual surveys of smartphone satisfaction, and they're due to release a new one in a month or so. If Apple has dropped significantly there then they should be worried.

Then your reply is that people hold Apple to a higher standard. This is 'een oneigenlijk argument'. Satisfaction is dropping, and they are not on top of satisfaction ratings anymore. Even if people hold Apple to a higher standard, their performance is slipping to the competion, so its an ominous sign any way you slice it.

This is not a random survey - it's an online poll. It's from a company that pays people to fill in surveys

JD Power does actual surveys of smartphone satisfaction, and they're due to release a new one in a month or so. If Apple has dropped significantly there then they should be worried.

That's a fair point to make, but still DC questioned the premise itself, not the accuracy of the data.

Then your reply is that people hold Apple to a higher standard. This is 'een oneigenlijk argument'. Satisfaction is dropping, and they are not on top of satisfaction ratings anymore. Even if people hold Apple to a higher standard, their performance is slipping to the competion, so its an ominous sign any way you slice it.

This is not a random survey - it's an online poll. It's from a company that pays people to fill in surveys

JD Power does actual surveys of smartphone satisfaction, and they're due to release a new one in a month or so. If Apple has dropped significantly there then they should be worried.

That's a fair point to make, but still DC questioned the premise itself, not the accuracy of the data.

I don't disagree Apple left a vacuum it shouldn't have left, but at that point I think distribution was a bigger factor than not having a lower-cost model. You are right, though: Apple chose profit and establishing the iPhone as a premier brand (to both carriers and consumers) rather than going for a wider market, and in doing so, have Android the oxygen to survive, improve, and thrive. I wonder if Apple was hoping WP would do a better job of competing with Android; their failure has increased the pressure on Apple quite a bit.

I think Apple probably contemplated edging down in the market over time, but they expected additional years essentially without competition. Android made every difference between little early competition and fierce competition within the first few years.

The opening moves are extraordinarily important when everything compounds exponentially as time goes on. Microsoft and Blackberry waiting until essentially now before there was meaningful competition would have completely changed the outcome.

Then your reply is that people hold Apple to a higher standard. This is 'een oneigenlijk argument'.

Lol what? I didn't reply on his post.... Besides, what I said is subtly but crucially different. I do not say that Androids in the high end get a pass. I said Androids in the lower end get a pass... and that is completely logical. Or do you expect a 100 euro bike to be as good as an 800 euro bike?

I argue with (amongst others) OC about the likelihood of a cheap iPhone. I say that Apple can't release a bad model or it will dillute the brand name, so I wonder if it's likely. Note that you can read Tim Cook's interview the same way. => Making an iPhone as we know it might be impossible, so they think of different solutions to cover the lower ranges.

I don't use an "Oneigenlijk argument, but it seems you use a "Vogelverschrikker"

I do not talk about ratings... you are.

If you want to talk about how Apple is dropping the ball with their form factor stubbornness and the latest iOs issues you get no argument from me. But that's not what I'm discussing here. I simply say I still.do.not.think.an.iPhone.in.the.current.mould.is.likely. Ratings have nothing to do with that.

It'll be interesting to see if they can keep up this momentum. WP8 performed ok at launch, but that was somewhat expected. I'm not confident that the forthcoming numbers will be as good. After initial proclamations that sales were up 400% or so percent (or whatever number Ballmer touted) it's all gone disturbingly quiet again from both Microsoft and Nokia.

Well...for whatever stupid-ass reasons, the Nokia flagships are AT&T only. Such stupidity. Should be on Verizon too. Or MS should be courting others as well. Particularly Samsung.

We'll see. I think the continued sale/exposure of Windows 8 will help. That's the plan, right? A halo affect. Be fun to watch.

Actually, I think focusing on HTC makes a lot of sense. Going to Samsung, they have to go hat-in-hand, and likely would give up all revenue/profit for an attempt at market share. Going to HTC, they get to go back to a long-time partner and say "Android's been pretty rough, eh? Why not keep expanding your windows Phone portfolio like in the good old days?" They then have a company they've had a relationship in the smartphone space for a decade re-engage in a serious manner.

Of course, I'm fairly sure I'm describing what already happened with HTC and the WP8 launch.